Archived_member14
SPNer
Re: Dairy prodcuts & Sikhism?
13800038 ji,
I thought Randip ji's response was good, although that was before I read his comments in later messages.....
But now I would like to talk with you.
What you have been suggesting is that the moral quality of an action changes with change in background information. For example in this particular case of "drinking milk", the rightness and wrongness of the act is different in each of the following cases:
1. Not knowing what it is (as in the case of an infant).
2. Knowing that it is milk, but no knowledge about where it comes from (a child).
3. Knowing that it is from a cow but with no idea about the fact that it was meant for the calf.
4. Knowing that it is intended for the calf, but thinking that what you got is what is "extra".
5. Knowing that the calf was deprived of milk just so that you could drink it.
6. Knowing that the cow and the calf were subject to bad conditions in the process of getting the milk for you.
7. Knowing that these things generally happen, but no way of knowing for sure whether the milk you are drinking has the same history.
8. Getting to drink the milk you believe has gone through the correct procedure.
But really, does anyone ever think beyond "milk", plain, sweet, chocolate flavour etc. or perhaps compare with tea, coffee and so on, whether one likes it or not and whether it is good or bad for health?
And why should they?
Eating food is eating food, and although this is mostly done with greed, it however is a necessary activity for maintenance and continuance of life, in which case there can in fact be understanding about it. But although it can't be expected that anyone today will have such level of understanding where food is then seen as a kind of medicine, still it must be an innocent activity for everyone is it not? After all, drinking milk is neither killing, lying nor stealing, or do you think that it is?
You make a link between one person's evil actions with another's innocent one. But know that this very activity of yours is itself wrong, and how so? This is because you are in effect encouraging wrong understanding and wrong thinking about one's experience. Instead of leading someone to understand what the reality is there and then, in placing value in thoughts about the past, projecting this into the present with an implication of what the future may bring, is leading others in the wrong direction. And this is a form of evil of a high category.
After watching the video, instead of trying to show what is right and what is wrong to those who consume milk, why not the urgency to try and talk sense into those other people who were involved directly, with the bad treatment of the cows? Of course, I wouldn't encourage you to do this, since I'm quite sure that they wouldn't listen to you. However, I believe that your mistake is that although you do have some idea that causing distress to animals is morally wrong, the understanding is only very vague.
Had your understanding been deeper and the reference was to the quality of mind itself and the associated intention, you'd know to separate the act of drinking and eating food from that of moral / immoral actions performed at other times. Let alone linking one person's actions with that of another, you'd know not to link the two kinds of actions even with reference to one individual alone. If I kill to eat, the killing is no doubt wrong, however even this won't make my eating on a later occasion any different from say, my eating the same meat in a restaurant. In short, beef is not cow and eating is not killing.
I'll leave the rest of your message without commenting except that what you've written is what I consider "thought proliferation" conditioned by attachment and wrong understanding. And this is yet more evidence as to to the greater evil of "wrong understanding", namely that it leads to much perversion of perception and wrong thinking which then conditions accordingly, the behaviour through body, speech and mind.
13800038 ji,
I thought Randip ji's response was good, although that was before I read his comments in later messages.....
But now I would like to talk with you.
What you have been suggesting is that the moral quality of an action changes with change in background information. For example in this particular case of "drinking milk", the rightness and wrongness of the act is different in each of the following cases:
1. Not knowing what it is (as in the case of an infant).
2. Knowing that it is milk, but no knowledge about where it comes from (a child).
3. Knowing that it is from a cow but with no idea about the fact that it was meant for the calf.
4. Knowing that it is intended for the calf, but thinking that what you got is what is "extra".
5. Knowing that the calf was deprived of milk just so that you could drink it.
6. Knowing that the cow and the calf were subject to bad conditions in the process of getting the milk for you.
7. Knowing that these things generally happen, but no way of knowing for sure whether the milk you are drinking has the same history.
8. Getting to drink the milk you believe has gone through the correct procedure.
But really, does anyone ever think beyond "milk", plain, sweet, chocolate flavour etc. or perhaps compare with tea, coffee and so on, whether one likes it or not and whether it is good or bad for health?
And why should they?
Eating food is eating food, and although this is mostly done with greed, it however is a necessary activity for maintenance and continuance of life, in which case there can in fact be understanding about it. But although it can't be expected that anyone today will have such level of understanding where food is then seen as a kind of medicine, still it must be an innocent activity for everyone is it not? After all, drinking milk is neither killing, lying nor stealing, or do you think that it is?
You make a link between one person's evil actions with another's innocent one. But know that this very activity of yours is itself wrong, and how so? This is because you are in effect encouraging wrong understanding and wrong thinking about one's experience. Instead of leading someone to understand what the reality is there and then, in placing value in thoughts about the past, projecting this into the present with an implication of what the future may bring, is leading others in the wrong direction. And this is a form of evil of a high category.
After watching the video, instead of trying to show what is right and what is wrong to those who consume milk, why not the urgency to try and talk sense into those other people who were involved directly, with the bad treatment of the cows? Of course, I wouldn't encourage you to do this, since I'm quite sure that they wouldn't listen to you. However, I believe that your mistake is that although you do have some idea that causing distress to animals is morally wrong, the understanding is only very vague.
Had your understanding been deeper and the reference was to the quality of mind itself and the associated intention, you'd know to separate the act of drinking and eating food from that of moral / immoral actions performed at other times. Let alone linking one person's actions with that of another, you'd know not to link the two kinds of actions even with reference to one individual alone. If I kill to eat, the killing is no doubt wrong, however even this won't make my eating on a later occasion any different from say, my eating the same meat in a restaurant. In short, beef is not cow and eating is not killing.
I'll leave the rest of your message without commenting except that what you've written is what I consider "thought proliferation" conditioned by attachment and wrong understanding. And this is yet more evidence as to to the greater evil of "wrong understanding", namely that it leads to much perversion of perception and wrong thinking which then conditions accordingly, the behaviour through body, speech and mind.
